[PATCH wayland-protocols 1/4] stable: add presentation-time draft

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:41:27 -0800
Bill Spitzak <spitzak at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > +      Request 'feedback' can be regarded as an additional wl_surface  
> > > > > +      method. It is part of the double-buffered surface state update
> > > > > +      mechanism, where other requests first set up the state and  
> > then  
> > > > > +      wl_surface.commit atomically applies the state into use. In
> > > > > +      other words, wl_surface.commit submits a content update.  
> > > >
> > > > Could this paragraph be restated to be more clear?  
> > >
> > > Perhaps, but I have hard time finding the words. The key points are
> > > that feedback is double-buffered, part of a commit as all
> > > double-buffered state is, and it defines the term "content update" used
> > > later.  
> >
> > I would suggest a rephrasing myself but I'm not sure I comprehend your
> > description adequately enough to do so.  But I can point out some
> > phrasings that I think are problematic:  'can be regarded' seems a bit
> > nebulous; are there other ways it could be regarded?  'applies the state
> > into use' seems an awkward phrasing.  'In other words' makes me wonder
> > if your simpler final sentence summarizing the thing would be better
> > placed at the start of the paragraph.
> >  
> 
> I think using "double buffered" when talking about image buffers is
> probably really confusing. And in this case it can be a lot simpler:
> 
> "Request 'feedback' from the next wl_surface.commit"

Hi,

"double-buffered state" is an explicit term we use to describe how a
wl_surface works, but you're both quite right. How about the following
rephrasing:

      A content update for a wl_surface is submitted by a
      wl_surface.commit request. Request 'feedback' associates with
      the wl_surface.commit and provides feedback on the content
      update, particularly the final realized presentation time.

It defines not only a content update, but also content submission which
is used further on in the spec. It implies the double-buffered state
semantics without actually using the term (it's not really state to be
applied), and makes a link with the very next paragraph describing the
prensentation time.


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20160224/2ba6f57a/attachment.sig>